JUDGMENT : SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Fagu Mondal challenging the judgment dated 02.12.2010 (hereinafter called as impugned judgment) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Sections 376 (2) (g)/379/324/323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). in consequence of such conviction order was passed on 04.12.2010 sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g), I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 379, I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.100/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. with order to run the sentences simultaneously. The case under trial in the trial Court was initiated against the appellant and one Mohan Mondal as accused persons. Said Mohan Mondal absconded in course of trial and in the trial Court his case was filed for the present. Splitting up his case the case was fully tried against the appellant and the impugned judgment was delivered. In the trial Court the case of accused Mohan Mondal still remains pending. It is a case of gang-rape of a married woman aged about 35 years after assaulting her administering country liquor to her forcibly and snatching her gold earrings and nose-pin by two accused persons including the appellant on 13.06.2004 in the shop room of the appellant when the victim lady (hereinafter referred as PW 1) became senseless due to such brutal torture on her. After the incidents accused persons left the senseless victim inside a jungle at Kalidighi field. Regaining sense PW 1 returned home and narrated the facts to her husband (PW 15). Then PW 15 took PW 1 to a quack doctor and under his advice took her to Hatimari hospital wherefrom she was referred to Malda Sadar Hospital where she was medically treated as indoor patient for nine days. Regaining sense PW 1 returned home and narrated the facts to her husband (PW 15). Then PW 15 took PW 1 to a quack doctor and under his advice took her to Hatimari hospital wherefrom she was referred to Malda Sadar Hospital where she was medically treated as indoor patient for nine days. On the following date of occurrence PW 15 lodged FIR at Gazole P.S. and police investigated the case. PW 15 described himself as a day labour. In FIR he stated that on 13.06.2004 PW 1 went to the field for cutting grass for their cows. Accused persons took her to the shop of the appellant at Kalidighi field and then the occurrence took place. In the night at about 11:00 p.m. PW 1 returned home with bleeding injuries on her ears, nose and private parts and her wearing apparels were soaked with blood. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove the case. Documentary evidence was also adduced during trial and said documents were marked exhibits 1 to 10. Wearing apparels of the PW 1 were collectively marked Mat. exhibit- I. Defence of the appellant as accused during trial was that the whole prosecution story was false one and the case was brought by PW 1 in connivance with her husband to squeeze money from accused persons creating pressure upon them. No evidence was adduced by accused. At the time of hearing this appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is cryptic and not based on reasoning and it is bad in law. He took us to the written information lodged by PW 15 and the evidence of the victim PW 1 he submitted that there is major discrepancy between the FIR and the version of the prosecutrix. His further arguments is that the PW 1 was not corroborated by medical evidence on the question of gang rape. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that in the impugned judgment, the principle that invariably in rape cases the Court would lean very heavily in favour of the medical evidence before holding that the offence has been conclusively established, has been ignored. He submitted for re-appreciation of prosecution evidence by this Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State advanced his arguments that the decision of the impugned judgment is strongly supported by evidence, adduced by prosecution during trial. He submitted for re-appreciation of prosecution evidence by this Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State advanced his arguments that the decision of the impugned judgment is strongly supported by evidence, adduced by prosecution during trial. He expressed his opinion that the impugned judgment might have been more speaking but that does not vitiate the decision arrived at by the learned trial Judge. He strongly supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Considering the arguments advanced before us we re-appreciate the evidence recorded during trial and the attending circumstances as hereunder. Written FIR (exhibit- 7) is not a substantive piece of evidence. However, in this case PW 15 lodged the FIR at P.S. and it has been proved by the scribe PW 12. According to PW 15 the FIR was lodged by PW 15 after the facts being narrated to him by PW 1. The PW 1 is the star witness of prosecution. Excepting PW 1 none else is eye-witness of the occurrence. It also cannot be expected that the offence of this nature might have been committed within the sight of others. PW 1 discussed the occurrence as she went to the field at about 4:00/5:00 p.m. on the date of occurrence for cutting grass. She became tired. Absconding accused Mohan called her to shop of appellant for taking rest. She went with him to the shop. Both the accused persons told her for taking liquor but she disagreed. Then accused persons closed the door of the shop and forcibly administered her to swallow liquor and both of them assaulted PW 1 with fists and blows and snatched her gold ornaments from her ears and nose. They committed rape on her in that room. At that time of incidents she lost her sense. When she regained sense she realised that she was lying in a jungle. She was feeling severe pain on her persons. She returned home and narrated the facts to her husband. During cross-examination she stated that accused Mohan resides besides the house of PW 1 and he calls PW 1 as ‘didi’ (elder sister). PW 1 is mother of her two daughters aged 13 years and 10 years respectively as on 18.4.2006 at the time of recording her deposition. She returned home and narrated the facts to her husband. During cross-examination she stated that accused Mohan resides besides the house of PW 1 and he calls PW 1 as ‘didi’ (elder sister). PW 1 is mother of her two daughters aged 13 years and 10 years respectively as on 18.4.2006 at the time of recording her deposition. Statement of PW 1 was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) but it was not marked exhibit during trial which might have been marked exhibit in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Evidence Act with presumption that the document is genuine and such statement of PW1 was duly taken by learned Judicial Magistrate. It is significant to mention that learned Judge in the trial Court used that statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. inviting explanation of accused during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. (vide question No. 16) and also referring it in the impugned judgment. Said statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. does not appear to us contradictory to her deposition. We find said statement is substance of her deposition in minute details. We like to mention that PW 1 and her husband PW 15 both are illiterate and PW 15 is a day labour. It reveals from the totality of evidence on record that after the occurrence PW1 narrated the facts to PW 15 first. According to PW 15, the distance between the place where PW 1 was cutting grass and the shop where she was taken by accused is about 50 cubits. When PW 1 returned home in the night PW 15 found bleeding on ears, nose and private parts of PW 1. Then PW 15 took PW 1 to a quack first and thereafter to Hatimari hospital by rickshaw van of PW 4 and therefrom to Malda hospital. During his cross-examination he stated nothing contradictory to his examination-in-chief. In our view evidence of PW 1 is very much convincing and PW 15 corroborated her on material points. It is evident from deposition of PW 1 that she realised after regaining sense that she was raped by accused persons as she felt sexual intercourse was done on her while she remained senseless. In our view evidence of PW 1 is very much convincing and PW 15 corroborated her on material points. It is evident from deposition of PW 1 that she realised after regaining sense that she was raped by accused persons as she felt sexual intercourse was done on her while she remained senseless. It is needless to say that PW 1, being mother of two children is competent enough to realise whether sexual intercourse on her was done in her unconscious state. PW 2 witnessed seizure of wearing apparels of PW 1 and identified the same as Mat. exhibit- I. PW 2 stated that he saw swelling marks on face of PW 1 and her bleeding injuries on ears and nose. PW 3 is father of PW 4. Corroborating PW 15 and PW 4 he stated that PW 1 was taken to hospital on rickshaw van by PW 4. PW 3 stated that he saw bleeding injuries of PW 1 on her ears and nose and he witnessed blood stains on the lower portion of the wearing saree of PW 1. During cross-examination he stated that PW 15 is his cousin brother by distant relation. In his examination-in-chief he stated he heard from PW 15 that accused persons assaulted PW 1 in the field and caused her injuries. During cross-examination his evidence about knowledge from PW 15 and his witnessing injuries of PW 1 and blood stains on lower portion of wearing saree of PW 1 was not specifically challenged. Evidence of PW 4 is corroboration to the PW 15 and PW 3. PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 10 are medical officers. PW 5 medically examined the appellant and accused Mohan Mondal and found them capable of sexual intercourse. His said evidence is unchallenged. PW 6 examined PW 1 at Malda District Hospital on 14.06.2004 as PW 1 was referred from Hatimari PHC at 3:40 hrs. with history of assault and with injury and bruises over ears and nose as well as left side of face and with valval injury. PW 1 was admitted in hospital noting the injuries and swelling mark found during examination. Medical report (exhibit- 3) fully corroborates PW 6. During cross-examination of PW 6 nothing contradictory to PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 15 has transpired. PW 1 was admitted in hospital noting the injuries and swelling mark found during examination. Medical report (exhibit- 3) fully corroborates PW 6. During cross-examination of PW 6 nothing contradictory to PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 15 has transpired. PW 6 was not suggested even that injuries found on the persons might have been caused by self infliction or otherwise and not due to assault and rape. PW 7 is a gynaecologist. He found old lacerated wound on right lebia majora of PW 1. He opined that injury might have been caused by blunt object. On pervaginal examination of PW 1 he found uterus was normal in size and R/V in position, hymen was absent, two fingers easily accessible into the vagina and no foreign body was detected inside her vagina. In our opinion said symptoms are not abnormal for a mother of two grown up children but such symptoms also do not rule out possibility of rape of the woman. PW 7 stated that he also found injures present on ear, nose and throat of PW 1. During cross-examination he stated that the injuries found on the person of PW 1 were old but he did not state the age of injuries. PW 10 examined PW 1 at Hatimari B.P.H.C. on 13.06.2004 and found both ear lobes torn, swelling of left periorbical region and swelling of eye lids, cut injury of left side of nose approximately 1/2 ? and lacerated injury over both valval region approximately 2 ?. However, he did not mention any injury of PW 1 as old on 13.06.04 as stated by PW 7 on examination on 14.6.04. As such, we may safely come to the conclusion that PW 7 mentioned the old lacerated wound on right lebia majora as it was not fresh wound of 14.06.04. Prosecution claimed that PW 1 sustained injury on 13.06.2004. Having considered the medical evidence with ocular evidence we believe that the PW 1 is victim of valval penetration. True that there is distinction between valval penetration and vaginal penetration but both type of penetration fulfil requirement to constitute the offence of rape in terms of Section 375, I.P.C. Mat exhibit- I sari, saya and blouse of PW 1 were examined in Forensic Science Laboratory and human blood was found on each of said wearing apparels. True that there is distinction between valval penetration and vaginal penetration but both type of penetration fulfil requirement to constitute the offence of rape in terms of Section 375, I.P.C. Mat exhibit- I sari, saya and blouse of PW 1 were examined in Forensic Science Laboratory and human blood was found on each of said wearing apparels. Semen of the appellant was examined in that laboratory and spermatozoon but no gonococcus were detected on examination. In the vaginal swab of PW 1 neither spermatozoon nor gonococcus but blood was detected. These are findings in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Such evidence, in our opinion does not rule out the allegations of assault and gang rape on PW 1. It is pertinent to note that Mat exhibit- I was examined in Forensic Science Laboratory in October, 2004 and occurrence took place in June, 2004. To arrive at our findings we have considered the facts that the victim woman is married having husband and two children and her age is about 35 years and that marks of injuries on her ears, nose with swelling on face and injury on valva were proved by PW 1, PW 15, PW 5 and medical evidence beyond reasonable doubt and that evidence of PW 1 about her becoming senseless in course of the incidents and her realisation about sexual intercourse and pain on her persons and that bleeding from her ears, nose and genitals was seen by PW 15 and that blood stains on Mat exhibit- I were seen by PW 3 and PW 4 in the fateful night and that blood was found on her wearing apparels on examination in Forensic Science Laboratory and that presence of blood in vaginal swab of PW 1 was detected on scientific examination and that on medical examination the appellant was found capable for sexual intercourse and that PW 7 being a gynaecologist opined the lacerated injury on right lebia majora of PW 1 was caused by blunt object. Lacerated injury on lebia majora is possible by forceful penetration of penis which may be considered as blunt object. Such medico legal aspects are relevant in case of rape. Lacerated injury on lebia majora is possible by forceful penetration of penis which may be considered as blunt object. Such medico legal aspects are relevant in case of rape. In the 7th edition of HWV Cox Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 607-608 some medico legal aspect of physical examination in cases of rape have been mentioned which we quote:- “As the offence of rape in privacy, and direct evidence of rape is rarely available, corroboration of the testimony of the complainant is sought from medical evidence. A charge of rape is very easy to make and very difficult one to refute, and in common fairness to the accused, the courts insist on corroboration of the complainants story. Sometimes rape is clearly proved or admitted, and the question is whether the accused committed the rape. At other times, the association of the accused and the complainant is admitted and the question is whether the rape was committed. Where rape is denied, the sort of corroboration one looks for is medical evidence showing injury to the private parts of the complainant, injury to the other parts of her body, which may have been occasioned in struggle, seminal stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused, or on the places where the offence is committed. Thus medical evidence in cases of rape is a very valuable piece of evidence. In rape cases medical evidence is adduced on the following points: (a). Age of the victim, (b). Marks of resistance, if any, on the person of the victim and of the accused, (c). Marks of violence on the genitals of the victim and of the accused, (d). Stains of blood or sperms (or other fluids, urine, faces, etc) on the clothes of the victim or the accused, (e). Presence or absence of semen/blood in the vagina, (f). Rupture of hymen if necessary, (g). Capacity of the accused to commit rape, (h). Indications of penetration, (i). Indications of communication of any venereal disease”. It is the settled principle that witnesses may lie, documents may lie but circumstances do not. In this case according to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record absence of semen and spermatozoon or gonococcus in vaginal swab of PW 1 and absence of spermatozoa or semen in Mat. Indications of penetration, (i). Indications of communication of any venereal disease”. It is the settled principle that witnesses may lie, documents may lie but circumstances do not. In this case according to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record absence of semen and spermatozoon or gonococcus in vaginal swab of PW 1 and absence of spermatozoa or semen in Mat. exhibit- I worn by PW 1 during occurrence detected in examination after a few months do not suggest innocence of accused. It is significant to note that injuries of PW 1 on her ears, nose, valva and swelling on face is well proved by medical evidence and PW 1 has sufficiently explained how those injuries caused by accused persons but during cross-examination no defence case was made out or even suggested that said injuries were caused otherwise and not as alleged by PW 1. Be it noted that corroboration is a rule of prudence. In this case nothing has come out to establish even by preponderance of probability that there was any reason for which PW 1 might have falsely implicated the appellant and another accused in destruction of her self-respect shouldering risk of bearing a social stigma in rest of her life. Testimony of PW 1 inspires our confidence and is found to be reliable. The absence of semen or spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of PW 1 and on her wearing apparels cannot cast doubt the creditworthiness of PW 1. Significantly, the valval injury of PW 1 without cogent explanation from the side of appellant and bleeding from genitals of PW 1 is a strong corroboration to the case of gang rape as stated in substance by the truthful victim PW 1. Therefore, we do not insist for further corroboration. We like to note that absence of semen or spermatozoa in vaginal swab or wearing apparels of the victim is not conclusive proof of innocence of accused or of victim’s not being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse specifically when the victim was put in unconscious state by wrongdoers before doing the heinous wrong on her and bleeding injury on her private parts was found immediately after incident. PW 8, PW 9, PW 11 and PW 13 proved the investigation works done by the investigating police officer even in the absence of the investigating police officer as a witness of prosecution. PW 8, PW 9, PW 11 and PW 13 proved the investigation works done by the investigating police officer even in the absence of the investigating police officer as a witness of prosecution. Non-examination of the investigating police officer as a witness is not fatal for the prosecution according to the facts established by evidence adduced by prosecution and the attending circumstances transpired during trial. As a result, we concur with the decision of conviction and sentence of appellant arrived at in the impugned judgment. In addition, we are of the opinion, that it would have been proper for the learned Judge in the trial Court to pass order for payment of the fine amount if realised, as compensation to the victim woman under Section 357, Cr.P.C. Said omission may be lawfully cured by us and therefore, we direct that in case of realisation of the fine amount as awarded in the sentence of the convict appellant whole of the said amount shall be paid to PW 1 as compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. A copy of this judgment along with L.C.R. be sent to the trial Court from the department. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties or their advocates on record in compliance with usual formalities.